Tribunal denies insolvency application due to pre-existing dispute over payments and quality of goods/services.

The Tribunal rejected the application for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, citing the existence of a pre-existing dispute between the operational creditor and the corporate debtor regarding pending payments and quality of goods/services supplied. The judgment emphasized the need for a genuine dispute to reject such applications under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.
2. Existence of a dispute between the operational creditor and the corporate debtor regarding pending payments and quality of goods/services supplied.

Issue 1: Application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process:

The case involves an application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a company claimed to be the corporate debtor. The applicant, an operational creditor, had supplied paints/coatings to the respondent company against purchase orders issued in 2015 and 2016, amounting to Rs. 72,28,213. The respondent failed to make the payment, leading the applicant to issue a notice under Section 8 of the Code, claiming a total amount due of Rs. 96,79,666 as of 23.03.2018. The respondent replied raising objections, citing disputes regarding the quality of goods supplied and delays since October 2015, before the demand notice was issued.

Issue 2: Existence of a dispute between the operational creditor and the corporate debtor regarding pending payments and quality of goods/services supplied:

The respondent company raised objections regarding pending disputes between the parties, including complaints about the quality of paints supplied by the applicant. The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'dispute' under the Code includes matters related to the amount of debt, quality of goods/services, or breach of representation/warranty. It was established that a dispute existed between the parties, predating the demand notice, requiring further trial/investigation. The respondent had communicated the existence of a dispute prior to the issuance of the Section 8 notice, as evidenced by emails and correspondences dating back to October 2015. The Tribunal emphasized that the existence of a genuine dispute, not a spurious or hypothetical one, warranted the rejection of the application under Section 9(5)(ii)(d) of the Code.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the application for the initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, citing the existence of a pre-existing dispute between the operational creditor and the corporate debtor, as evidenced by communications and objections raised by the respondent company. The judgment emphasized the need for a genuine dispute to reject such applications under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---